Shibata wrote:EnriqueNormaly, ASIO buffer in audio interface, compensate the latency by host.But Nebula only one vst who had personal internal buffer and who reacts differently.Normaly if you render two files with identical settings, and reverse phase in one of them, you'll get zero 0, because the signal is subtracted each other.

Look, i render the tape preset with 128 internal buffer two times, reverse phase and get zero. You see that RME mixer shows -оо ( infinity )http://i.imgur.com/hGfBxF5.jpg

And if i render one file with 128 and one with 8192 the difference will be obvious. Look at my previous post in this thread. There are screens and audio examples.

So, internal buffer not compensate by host. No matter which. I tried Cubase, Nuendo, Studio one, Digital Performer and in Reaper.Furthermore, the higher internal buffer, the fastest the rendering and light to CPU and vise versa, which suggests that he is doing less computing at rendering and miss a part of a signal. This is even worse than just lower the sound quality because we lost the raw signal. And my test before with phase show it.

PS: Use standart vst like Ozone 7 full loaded with his modules and render file with my audio interface buffer ( RME AIO ). 128 and my max settings 4096. Reverse phase and get zero.http://i.imgur.com/ILNXtaD.jpgSo, the internal nebula buffer is unique, although it is not the buffer problem, but RTE which it affect.

Now the questions is completely different and you should consider:- Does Nebula playing/processing always the same set of kernel?- Also happens with INIT?

* We understand reverse phase as polarity reverse.

Nebula DSPBuffer setting is time delay in samples this time is reported to the host using the plug-in protocol.

Support wrote:Buffer is time delay used for give more "room" to CPU for data process without get Lost Audio Buffers (LAB), audio/video host should compensate this delay.

Audio not suffer, and is not changed, due is time delay not phase delay.

Normally 1024 samples of audio buffer in audio interface is consider the standard value, but some audio host has a feature for setup host buffer with a bigger value than the audio interface buffer, normally setting from x2 to x8, and recommend and standard value is x4 (4096 samples).

Thanks for the clarification, Enrique. If users are finding that the value of the DSPBUFFER is affecting the audio quality (other than having it set to aggressively and taxing the CPU of course), that would represent a bug, and a serious one at that.

jfjer379@gmail.com wrote:so what is the recommended settings for nebula exactly ?

Yes, It would be nice to have a list of programs that their quality is affected by the DSPbuffer amount. Or is there an easy way to see which programs are Timed and which are Freqd? It would also be nice to have a lower DSPbuffer amount available for rendering. This also brings up the question of whether or not there are any Acqua plugins also effected by this setting. I think a lot of people would want to know about this and I'm surprised that I haven't heard more about it.

Thanks to Shibata for bringing this to our attention and TimP for more info.

Folks, let us not lose sight of the fact that if DSPBUFFER affects quality, that is a BUG.

We, the users, should not have to know or share or experiment with libraries to make sure the sounds don't change based on a buffer setting.

Acustica, can have you tried to reproduce what Shibata has reported to you? If not, why have you not done so yet? If you have, when are you projecting to fix this?

I, for one, do not want to follow the advice of other users to make sure that the DSPBUFFER setting does not mess up the sound of my libraries. I want Acustica to investigate, confirm and fix this if it is indeed true. That is the only acceptable outcome for a product with such a premium price and high expectations.

Folks, let us not lose sight of the fact that if DSPBUFFER affects quality, that is a BUG.

A buffer is time delay, not phase delay, whereby can not change the sound, whereby the sound quality.

Nebula is very open, and you can customize it with your settings, but soon as you setup a set of erroneous parameters it will start functioning incorrectly.

For that simple reason we encourage our users test first with factory MAST page values and INIT emulation preset.

We, the users, should not have to know or share or experiment with libraries to make sure the sounds don't change based on a buffer setting.

Nebula is very open, and you can customize it with your settings, but soon as you setup a set of erroneous parameters it will start functioning incorrectly.

Acustica, can have you tried to reproduce what Shibata has reported to you? If not, why have you not done so yet? If you have, when are you projecting to fix this?

Nothing to fix, yet.

I, for one, do not want to follow the advice of other users to make sure that the DSPBUFFER setting does not mess up the sound of my libraries. I want Acustica to investigate, confirm and fix this if it is indeed true. That is the only acceptable outcome for a product with such a premium price and high expectations.

If your Nebula setting seems to work incorrectly with a 3rd party library, report first to the 3rd party library developer, he will advice you the correct Nebula settings for the library.

REMEMBER: Nebula is very open, and you can customize it with your settings, but soon as you setup a set of erroneous parameters it will start functioning incorrectly.

Enrique, thank you very much for the detailed response. Yes, it seems early to jump to any conclusions in regards to why Shibata is experiencing what he reported. Hopefully he will pursue this and provide more information so that if there is an issue, Acustica is able to reproduce it.

My main concern was to encourage Neb users to avoid going down the path of listing particular libraries and finding 'optimum' DSPBUFFER settings for each. This would be yet another TIMED vs. FREQD rabbit hole. Maybe others are okay with falling into another endless abyss, but I'm sure not up for it. I don't want to futz with Nebula. I want it to sound the best it possibly can at all times, and I want to make music.

If there is a problem, I know you guys will take care of it like you always do. As it stands right now, as you alluded, there is no bug known to Acustica and nothing to fix right now.

jfjer379@gmail.com wrote:so what is the recommended settings for nebula exactly ?

The one that the program developer used.

But personally, I use 1024 buffer on everything as it seems to sound most natural. Short buffer settings sound a bit more aggressive but at the same time a bit scratchy/flat. You can easily test this for your self - changing buffers in all your Nebula instances and rendering different songs versions. You may have different opinion as to what sounds better or worse, though.